Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

This year I got around 6 transfer students. And they all come from the same teacher. Well, she did an awesome job for the past couple of years (they all started together) and I'm pretty happy to have them as my students!

Hey, I got those students, too! But the good transfers are hard to come by. For every good transfer student, I get 20 dubious ones.

So my point is there are really too many factors at play to judge the quality of previous teaching, in my opinion.

Yes and no. I agree there are some awful students who are just awful because they can't learn and/or their parents don't want to be involved in the learning process. Or the kids are just being forced to take piano lessons against their will.

Yet ur still blaming the teacher..., what about the parent who want committed to lessons and allowed the child to not practice, or didn't increase lesson time or everytime you suggested something the parent wanted something different. Unless you are teaching right along side someone you can't tell if the are horrible or not .Also the grading events seem to mate not only to parents but universities too so there's nothing wrong with preparing students for those events even though that may consume most of your lesson time.

But AZPiano is very clear on the reasons: If there's a clear reason (missed method books, jumping anywhere in the book, not training the kid to read properly, no sight reading practice, etc), then this IS the teachers fault. I mean even if the parent doesn't care, the books/scores should be filled with notes, drafts, comments, etc... with pencil or whatever else you may think necessary.

For the students that AZ is talking about, this doesn't seem the case. Plus I think he's had the students enough time to tell if some students are static, because of their being lazy, or the parents not caring, or because they lack the actual knowledge of what to do when practising the piano...

_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

One of my children's friends transferred because the first teacher was very severe during lessons and scolded the student a lot and the student got very scared of piano lessons.

One story that my son's first teacher told us was that a parent transferred her kid to our teacher because the previous teacher didn't want the kid to take exams just yet and our teacher had the reputation of getting lots of kids through exams. Then our teacher told the parent that he agreed with the previous teacher that this kid simply wasn't ready. So soon enough the parent transferred the kid to yet another teacher...

There are no bad piano teachers, only bad pupils. They need to be caned at least once a month, more often in bad cases. Once they have learned that the ability to sit without severe discomfort is a privilege to be earned rather than a right their progress is sure to be rapid.

There are no bad piano teachers, only bad pupils. They need to be caned at least once a month, more often in bad cases. Once they have learned that the ability to sit without severe discomfort is a privilege to be earned rather than a right their progress is sure to be rapid.

Marks in brackets indicate pass mark, but it is not necessary to achieve this mark in all sections.

The above is true for grades 1 through 8. Diplomas are different - all sections must be passed. If you fail a section, for instance the Quick Study (which replaces sight reading), you can retake just that section at a later date.

So, according to your philosophy, polyphonist, the same should be true of the lower exams, am I correct? After all, it wouldn't make sense to single out sight-reading as being the only part of the exam in which a pass is compulsory.

So, according to your philosophy, polyphonist, the same should be true of the lower exams, am I correct? After all, it wouldn't make sense to single out sight-reading as being the only part of the exam in which a pass is compulsory.

No - you should have to pass everything. That's my point.

And sight-reading and aural tests (I assume that's dictation) are weighted FAR too little. No wonder so many students are clueless in these two areas.

According to your thinking if this was a math exam, Ben should be disqualified because he mixed up a couple of numbers and failed to check on his math (or memory). According to me it should be fine and it's fairly obvious that it was a mishap, bound to happen in everyone, anyone and any time.

"Problem of a day"

For the record, the National Scholarship Foundation of Greece has the same system: You are allowed to (slightly) not pass one of the four areas you are examined when trying to get a rich, nice, juicy scholarship!

According to your thinking if this was a math exam, Ben should be disqualified because he mixed up a couple of numbers and failed to check on his math (or memory).

You are turning this into a fairly large straw man. I assume that the math exam would probably have more than one question. You're acting like I said one should have to do perfectly on everything. I didn't - I said everyone should need to PASS everything. If that means getting better than 67%, I'd say it's pretty generous.

Well, like it or not, it's the system that's been accepted by all the major examination boards (each of which is an extension of the academies) for at least the last few decades. The syllabuses have also been approved by the QCA and others, or at least the ones worth using have.

Anyhow - I, for one, would not like to see a change in the direction you propose, polyphonist. I think it would have a negative impact on both the students and the examination system.

Well, like it or not, it's the system that's been accepted by all the major examination boards (each of which is an extension of the academies) for at least the last few decades. The syllabuses have also been approved by the QCA and others, or at least the ones worth using have.

Anyhow - I, for one, would not like to see a change in the direction you propose, polyphonist. I think it would have a negative impact on both the students and the examination system.

Well, it's not really helpful to know a student's examination credentials right now, because the test is so easy to pass. So what's the point of giving it?

A lot of work is required to cover the requirements, and full marks are difficult to achieve.

I take it you're not a teacher?

I'm not a teacher involved with this examination system, no.

Maybe a lot of work is required to cover the requirements, but from what you've told me, it's not even necessary to cover the requirements. And we're not talking about full marks; we're talking about just not failing.

So you have no experience entering students for practical music exams?

Anyway, my comment about full marks was a lazy way of trying to communicate that in each section of the exam, marks are likely to be lost. It is amazing how easily this can bring the overall mark down to something pretty average, or even borderline.

The "pass" marks given for each section are for guidance only. The exam is taken as a whole.

Therefore, if someone has a dodgy sight-reading on the day, or maybe gets everything pretty good (including your precious sight-reading test) but has a wobbler on one of the pieces, they can still pass. This does not make it "easy" - it simply means that there is more than one way to achieve a certain result in a practical music exam.

So you have no experience entering students for practical music exams?

Anyway, my comment about full marks was a lazy way of trying to communicate that in each section of the exam, marks are likely to be lost. It is amazing how easily this can bring the overall mark down to something pretty average, or even borderline.

The "pass" marks given for each section are for guidance only. The exam is taken as a whole.

Therefore, if someone has a dodgy sight-reading on the day, or maybe gets everything pretty good (including your precious sight-reading test) but has a wobbler on one of the pieces, they can still pass. This does not make it "easy" - it simply means that there is more than one way to achieve a certain result in a practical music exam.

And I don't like that way of running it. Who cares if you have a "wobbler," or whatever? You get to take the test again. The way they should run it: You need to achieve a certain (fairly high) score on EACH PART OF THE TEST SEPARATELY. Then, if you pass each section separately, you pass the whole test. If you fail one of the sections, you have to retake the whole test. That's the way it should work. That's what will pass more well-rounded musicians, and fail the incompetent ones, rather than just trying to get everyone through.